Dataset Information

Patient mistreatment of health care professionals.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Mistreatment of health care professionals by patients is an ongoing problem. We aimed to construct and evaluate a curriculum that would prepare health care professionals for mistreatment by patients.

Methods

Lessons learned from 15 interviews and 2 focus groups with health care professionals were distilled into a multi-modal curriculum including didactics, simulation videos and role-play scenarios aimed to improve confidence in addressing mistreatment. This curriculum was disseminated at five educational workshops to health care professionals of various training groups and experience levels. Pre- and post-surveys were distributed to assess changes in participant's perspectives on readiness to address mistreatment. The signed-rank test was implemented to compare pre- and post- data.

Results

Participants were more likely to agree post-workshop that they had the right words to say, had a plan for what to do, and were more willing to speak up when they themselves or someone else was mistreated (p < .001). They were also more likely to agree post-workshop that there was something they could do to address patient mistreatment (p < .001).

Conclusions

Participant familiarity and confidence in responding to patient mistreatment increased. Our curriculum may serve as a foundation for institutions seeking to equip their educators, health care professionals, and trainees with strategies for addressing this important issue.

SUBMITTER: Mahoney DA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8886904 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient mistreatment of health care professionals.

Mahoney David A DA Gopisetty Divya D Osterberg Lars L Nudelman Matthew J R MJR Smith-Coggins Rebecca R

BMC medical education 20220301 1

<h4>Background</h4>Mistreatment of health care professionals by patients is an ongoing problem. We aimed to construct and evaluate a curriculum that would prepare health care professionals for mistreatment by patients.<h4>Methods</h4>Lessons learned from 15 interviews and 2 focus groups with health care professionals were distilled into a multi-modal curriculum including didactics, simulation videos and role-play scenarios aimed to improve confidence in addressing mistreatment. This curriculum w ...[more]

PMID: 35227253

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSpeaking up is important for patient safety, but often, health care professionals hesitate to voice concerns. Understanding the influencing factors can help to improve speaking-up behaviour and team communication. This review focused on health care professionals' speaking-up behaviour for patient safety and aimed at (1) assessing the effectiveness of speaking up, (2) evaluating the effectiveness of speaking-up training, (3) identifying the factors influencing speaking-up behaviour, and (4) developing a model for speaking-up behaviour.MethodsFive databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library) were searched for English articles describing health care professionals' speaking-up behaviour as well as those evaluating the relationship between speaking up and patient safety. Influencing factors were identified and then integrated into a model of voicing behaviour.ResultsIn total, 26 studies were identified in 27 articles. Some indicated that hesitancy to speak up can be an important contributing factor in communication errors and that training can improve speaking-up behaviour. Many influencing factors were found: (1) the motivation to speak up, such as the perceived risk for patients, and the ambiguity or clarity of the clinical situation; (2) contextual factors, such as hospital administrative support, interdisciplinary policy-making, team work and relationship between other team members, and attitude of leaders/superiors; (3) individual factors, such as job satisfaction, responsibility toward patients, responsibility as professionals, confidence based on experience, communication skills, and educational background; (4) the perceived efficacy of speaking up, such as lack of impact and personal control; (5) the perceived safety of speaking up, such as fear for the responses of others and conflict and concerns over appearing incompetent; and (6) tactics and targets, such as collecting facts, showing positive intent, and selecting the person who has spoken up.ConclusionsHesitancy to speak up can be an important contributing factor to communication errors. Our model helps us to understand how health care professionals think about voicing their concerns. Further research is required to investigate the relative importance of different factors.

Project description:BackgroundImplementing Patient Safety Incident Reporting and Learning (PSIRL) guidelines is critical in guiding clinical practice and improving clinical outcomes in specialized care units (SCUs). There is limited research on the evidence of the implemented PSIRL guidelines in SCUs at the global level.ObjectiveThis review aims to map the evidence of PSIRL guidelines implemented by health care professionals in specialized care units globally.MethodsA scoping review methodology, according to Joanna Briggs Institute, was adopted. The eligibility criteria were guided by the Population, Concept, and Context (PCC) framework, with the Population including health care professionals, the Concept including PSIRL guidelines, and the Context including specialized units globally. Papers written in English were searched from relevant databases and search engines. The PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Scoping Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist for used.ResultsThe 13 selected studies were published from 2003 to 2023. Most articles are from the Netherlands and Switzerland (n=3), followed by South Africa (n=2). The nature of implemented PSIRL guidelines was computer-based (n=11) and paper-based incident reporting (n=2). The reporting system was intended for all the health care professionals within the specialized units, focusing on patients, staff members, and families. The outcomes of implemented incident reporting guidelines were positive, as evidenced by improved reporting of incidents, including medication errors (n=8) and decreased rate of incidents and errors (n=4). Furthermore, 1 study showed no change (n=1) in implementing the incident reporting guidelines.ConclusionsThe implementation of reporting of patient safety incidents (PSIs) in specialized units started to be reported around 2002; however, the frequency of yearly publications remains very low. Although some specialized units are still using multifaceted interventions and paper reporting systems in reporting PSIs, the implementation of electronic and computer-based reporting systems is gaining momentum. The effective implementation of an electronic-based reporting system should extend into other units beyond critical care units, as it increases the reporting of PSIs, reducing time to make an informed reporting of PSIs and immediate accessibility to information when needed for analysis. The evidence on the implementation of PSI reporting guidelines in SCUs comes from 5 different continents (Asia, Africa, Australia, Europe, and North America). However, the number identified for certain countries within each continent is very minimal.

Project description:BackgroundProviding efficient and targeted services for patients with mental health problems requires efficient collaboration and coordination within healthcare providers, but measuring collaboration using traditional methods is challenging.AimsTo explore the patient-sharing networks of professionals taking care of different groups of patients with mental or substance use disorders.MethodWe used data that covered adult patients' visits to the primary care service providers of seven municipalities in Finland during year 2021. Data included 8,217 patients (147,430 visits) with mental or substance use disorders who were treated by 1,566 health care professionals. We calculated descriptive network metrics to examine the connectivity of professionals in three different patient groups (patients with substance use disorders, psychotic disorders, and depressive disorders) and compared these characteristics to a network based on all patients. We also analyzed whether patient sharing was associated with the health care professionals' attributes (occupational group, municipality) using Exponential Random Graph Models (ERGM).ResultsDiagnosis-specific networks were denser and more connected compared to the all-patients network. Nurses were the most central occupation in all the diagnosis-specific networks and especially in the substance use disorder patients network. When examining all patients, two professionals were more likely to share patients when they belonged to the same occupational group. However, in the network with depressive disorder patients we found the opposite: professionals were more likely to share patients if they were of different occupational groups.ConclusionsPatient-sharing networks within patients with a specific mental or substance use disorders are denser and more connected than networks based on all patients with mental or substance use disorders. In the substance use disorder patients network particularly, nurses were the most central occupation. Multi-professional connections were more likely in depressive disorder networks than in the all-patients network.

Project description:BackgroundDespite a growing body of knowledge about eHealth innovations, there is still limited understanding of the implementation of such tools in everyday primary care.ObjectiveThe objective of our study was to describe health care staff's experience with a digital communication system intended for patient-staff encounters via a digital route in primary care.MethodsIn this qualitative study we conducted 21 individual interviews with staff at 5 primary care centers in Sweden that had used a digital communication system for 6 months. The interviews were guided by narrative queries, transcribed verbatim, and subjected to content analysis.ResultsWhile the digital communication system was easy to grasp, it was nevertheless complex to use, affecting both staffing and routines for communicating with patients, and documenting contacts. Templates strengthened equivalent procedures for patients but dictated a certain level of health and digital literacy for accuracy. Although patients expected a chat to be synchronous, asynchronous communication was extended over time. The system for digital communication benefited assessments and enabled more efficient use of resources, such as staff. On the other hand, telephone contact was faster and better for certain purposes, especially when the patient's voice itself provided data. However, many primary care patients, particularly younger ones, expected digital routes for contact. To match preferences for communicating to a place and time that suited patients was significant; staff were willing to accept some nuisance from a suboptimal service-at least for a while-if it procured patient satisfaction. A team effort, including engaged managers, scaffolded the implementation process, whereas being subjected to a trial without likely success erected barriers.ConclusionsA digital communication system introduced in regular primary care involved complexity beyond merely learning how to manage the tool. Rather, it affected routines and required that both the team and the context were addressed. Further knowledge is needed about what factors facilitate implementation, and how. This study suggested including ethical perspectives on eHealth tools, providing an important but novel aspect of implementation.

Project description:BackgroundDigitalization is not fully implemented in clinical practice, and several factors have been identified as possible barriers, including the competencies of health care professionals. However, no summary of the available evidence has been provided to date to depict digital health competencies that have been investigated among health care professionals, the tools used in assessing such competencies, and the effective interventions to improve them.ObjectiveThis review aims to summarize digital health competencies investigated to date and the tools used to assess them among health care professionals.MethodsA systematic review based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist was performed. The MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, and Scopus databases were accessed up to September 4, 2021. Studies assessing digital health competencies with quantitative designs, targeting health care professionals, and written in English were included. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute tools.ResultsA total of 26 studies, published from 1999 to 2021, met the inclusion criteria, and the majority were cross sectional in design, while only 2 were experimental study designs. Most studies were assessed with moderate to low methodological quality; 4 categories and 9 subcategories of investigated digital health competencies have been identified. The most investigated category was "Self-rated competencies," followed by "Psychological and emotional aspects toward digital technologies," "Use of digital technologies," and "Knowledge about digital technologies." In 35% (9/26) of the studies, a previously validated tool was used to measure the competencies assessed, while others developed ad hoc questionnaires.ConclusionsMainly descriptive studies with issues regarding methodology quality have been produced to date investigating 4 main categories of digital health competencies mostly with nonvalidated tools. Competencies investigated might be considered while designing curricula for undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing education processes, whereas the methodological lacks detected might be addressed with future research. There is a need to expand research on psychological and emotional elements and the ability to use digital technology to self-learn and teach others.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42021282775; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=282775.

Dataset Information

Patient mistreatment of health care professionals.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Patient mistreatment of health care professionals.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets